Virgin 737 BNE RUNWAY OVERRUN
 

An ATSB investigation has commenced into a serious takeoff incident at Brisbane, Australia on November 30, 2022 involving a Virgin Australia Boeing 737-800.
Flight VA324 was on takeoff roll to Melbourne on runway 19L at 12:50PM when the aircraft rolled past the displaced end of the runway. The 737 became airborne in the section of the runway, that had been closed due to works in progress.
A Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) had been issued that effectively 831 meters of the southern part of runway 01R/19L were unavailable due to works in progress. (NOTAM) is a notice filed with an aviation authority to alert aircraft pilots of potential hazards along a flight route or at a location that could affect the safety of the flight.
Runway NOTAMS can be critical when closures are in effect. In poor weather, if workers and/or machinery are present they may not be visible to an operating aircraft and a collision could occur.
BOEING 737 NG - MSN 40996
VH-YFH
Serial number 40996 LN:3801
Type 737-8FE
First flight date 27/09/2011
Test registration N1786B
Plane age 11.2 years
Seat configuration Seat
Hex code 7C7A3B
Engines 2 x CFMI CFM56-7B26
No inference of blame or liability is implied, and readers should wait for the ATSB report before making judgment

How could anyone miss a NOTAM these days with the million reports about trees and cranes that are apparently in my way to somehow conduct safe flight. If someone could cut all the bull**** off that would be muchly appreciated.

Interesting. Usually coned off.

Let me guess: No risk to safety arose?

PoppaJo: This displacement is to ensure no one collides with that crane which infringes the outer horizontal surface by 100', 7.63nms away.

I agree that the amount of NOTAM's are a joke, but the reduced runway length was also advertised on the ATIS.

​​​​​​​
INFO E. WET. EXP INST APCH. RWY 19L&R ARR & DEP. INDEP PARALLEL DEPS IN PROGRESS. REDUCED RWY LENGTH IN OPER, RWY 19L. LDA 2689 M, TAKE OFF RUN AVBL 2689 M. WX: SH IN AREA. TMP: 22. VIS: GREATER THAN 10 KM. WND: 140 DEG MNM 8 KTS, MAX 20 KTS, XW MAX 20. CLD: FEW015, SCT035. QNH: 1014.
INFO E. WET. EXP INST APCH. RWY 19L&R ARR & DEP. INDEP PARALLEL DEPS IN PROGRESS. REDUCED RWY LENGTH IN OPER, RWY 19L. LDA 2689 M, TAKE OFF RUN AVBL 2689 M. WX: SH IN AREA. TMP: 22. VIS: GREATER THAN 10 KM. WND: 140 DEG MNM 8 KTS, MAX 20 KTS, XW MAX 20. CLD: FEW015, SCT035. QNH: 1014.

So, presumably, ATC required the crew to confirm QNH by readback, but didn't require the crew to confirm receipt of the NOTAM re the displaced end of the runway which the aircraft was about to use?

Or maybe ATC could have used the words: "Do you know that....?"

We live in a Safety Management World these days. It would be interesting to learn if any reference to the displaced/reduced runway length was mentioned when the crew received their airways clearance, then by BN ground and tower prior to takeoff.

Totally agree with the amount of rubbish NOTAM’s referring to cranes, drones etc well below any level that’s going to have any impact on aviation safety even if an abnormal occurred.

An industry overburdened with parasitic drag.

Fix stupid NOTAM format now

In the US, if you land or takeoff on a runway with reduced runway length, the tower controller will tell you this when they clear you to land or line up / takeoff.

I’m surprised that isn’t something that isn’t done here to be honest

Who recalls the Emirates A340 that had inadequate power settings for the runway length available?

Reduced power is great for saving money but it definitely does not save runway distance

https://www.flightglobal.com/emirate.../86203.article

When exactly do you read back the QNH on departure?

I have had the pleasure of realising that a crew were about to take off on a runway that was 4500' shorter than they were expecting. If you ever get out out of a first class seat and try to run to the cockpit door, you will find that it gets a bit of a response from the cabin crew, who knew I was an off duty PIC on type. I stopped before I got to the door, and then sat down on a spare F/A seat and strapped in again. Later in the cruise, I confirmed that the NOTAM existed on the ATIS, the NOTAM list, and I did a check of the performance that had been applied. I had done a quick maths while heading to bash on the door, and had concluded that they would get airborne just before the DER, and the perf data runs showed that had been the case. I was able to spot a landmark that was identifiable with the liftoff point. We were about 5' at the end of the concrete in this case, and the equipment was shorter than our gear. Simple case, a two engine aircraft will have a better margin to deal with a gross performance error than a 4 engine case, assuming that you don't lose an engine in either case. The probability of losing an engine in this case was probably around 20M:1. But that is one bird away from a bad day.

Today, my iPAD gives the notams for the airports, and highlights those in a list. They are readily identifiable as a taxiway, runway, comms, airspace etc matter, so the screening is far faster than the 88 pages of NOTAMS we got for a polar flight a few years back.

The event I was too close to arose where the ATC gave 5 different runways to the flight crew, and they were not a team that was known to tell the ATC to make up their mind. As an AAI for that company, I got to make my views to ATC later in the company investigation that occurred.

The NOTAM system is grossly deficient. There is no safety in a system that loses critical signal in the noise of the volume of inane routine messages. 88 pages, 15-18 NOTAMS per page, and the time provided by the company to review those is around 10 minutes at flight planning.

Where I used to work the shortening of the departure runway would be mentioned by clearance delivery ("runway 19L take off run avalialble...") and then again by ground on initial contact. ("runway 19L shortened, taxy...")

How did you know?

I’ve been told about reduced runway length by ATC before in Oz. Not sure if it’s procedure or if it was just offhand. Seems commonsense though. Having said that, the other 1000 arrival and departures from BNE managed to find the notam and allow for it…………this time………

Sounds like the BA 777 at St Lucia?

Being told of a reduced runway by ATC would be far more important than ATC broadcasting the reduced capability from CAT10 to 9 every time one of those guys goes to the toilet.

When will "Woke" kick in and and NOTAM change to NOTAP

In UK it has already kicked in - We're keeping NOTAM but now it stands for "Notice to Air Missions"! :rolleyes:

Good to know that they are dealing with the big issues!